Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

1    

Reportable  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

INHERENT JURISDICTION  

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)Nos.453-454 OF 2012   

IN   

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2504-2505 OF 2012  

BAJRANG LAL SHARMA    …PETITIONER  

VERSUS  

C.K. MATHEW AND ORS.    …ALLEGED CONTEMNORS/   

                                                                   RESPONDENTS  

J U D G M E N T  

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.  

1. These Contempt Petitions seek to highlight non-compliance of  

directions issued by this Court in its Judgments dated 07.12.2010 in Suraj  

Bhan Meena and another  vs.  State of Rajasthan and others1 and  

29.08.2012 in Salauddin Ahmed and another  vs.  Samta Andolan2 and  

 1 (2011) 1 SCC 467       2 (2012) 10 SCC 235   

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

2    

seek initiation of contempt proceedings against the alleged  

contemnors/respondents.  

2. The Contempt Petitioner, a Rajasthan Administrative Officer of  

1982 batch, had preferred DB Civil Writ Petition No.8104 of 2008 before  

the High Court3 for following reliefs:-  

(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the  

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside  

the notification dated 25.04.2008.  

(ii) By further appropriate writ order or direction the  

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct respondents  

to strictly adhere to the “catch-up rule” and revise  

the seniority of all the petitioners in comparison to  

SC/ST candidates after giving the benefit of  

regaining of the seniority by the general category  

candidates as envisaged by the circular dated  

01.04.1997 and provisional seniority list dated  

26.06.2000.  

(iii) By further appropriate writ order or direction the  

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare the circular  

dated 20.10.2000 unconstitutional and illegal as the  

same is not in accordance with the theory of  

compartmentalization.  

 3 High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

3    

(iv) By further appropriate writ order or direction the  

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to further direct  

respondents to revise the seniority list since 1982 as  

the benefit of seniority given to the reserved  

category candidates before 1995 in accordance with  

the Rule 33 of RAS Rules, 1954 is illegal.  

(v) By further appropriate writ order or direction the  

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to restrain the  

respondents to provide consequential seniority of  

SC/ST candidates as the Rules were not framed in  

pursuance of Article 16(4-A).  In alternative if Rule  

33 talks about giving benefit of consequential  

seniority then that rule be declared unconstitutional  

to the extent it provides consequential seniority to  

SC/ST employees.  

(vi) By further writ, order or direction the respondents be  

directed to strictly adhere to post based roster system  

as envisaged by R.K. Sabharwal’s case and  

respondents be further directed to bifurcate 53 seats  

occurring in 2008 because of the selection to IAS  

post in their respective years of vacancies for the  

sake of holding year wise DPCs for those years.  

(vii) By further writ, order or direction the respondents be  

restrained to provide the benefit of reservation in  

promotion with consequential seniority unless and

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

4    

until they establish the existence of three compelling  

reasons as enunciated in the judgment of M. Nagraj.  

(viii) By further writ, order or direction the respondents be  

directed to revise the seniority of all the petitioners  

and they should be given the benefit of their  

seniority in pursuance of the “catch-up rule”.  

(ix) By further writ, order or direction the respondents be  

restrained to make any selection for IAS cadre  

through promotion till disposal of this writ petition.  

3. The High Court by its judgment and order dated 05.02.20104  

quashed the notifications dated 25.04.2008 and 28.12.2002 and all  

consequential actions.  The challenge to the judgment of the High Court  

was considered by this Court and by its decision in Suraj Bhan1 the view  

taken by the High Court was affirmed.  The factual background was  

considered by this Court as under:-  

“4. All the writ petitioners, as also the petitioners in  

SLP (C) No. 6385 of 2010, are members of the  

Rajasthan Administrative Service and are governed by  

the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954. The  

writ petitioners in their respective writ petitions  

challenged the Notification dated 25-4-2008, issued by  

the State of Rajasthan in exercise of its powers  

conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the  

 4 Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  State of Rajasthan, WP (C)No.8104 of 2008 (Raj) and other  

connected matters

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

5    

Constitution of India amending the Rajasthan “Various  

Service Rules” with effect from 28-12-2002.  

5. According to the writ petitioners, they had been  

inducted in the Rajasthan Administrative Service in  

December 1982, through selection by the Rajasthan  

Public Service Commission. Vide notice dated 26-6-

2000, the State Government issued a provisional  

seniority list of Rajasthan Administrative Service  

Selection Grade as on 1-4-1997, in which Writ  

Petitioner 1, Bajrang Lal Sharma, was placed above  

Suraj Bhan Meena (Scheduled Tribe) and Sriram  

Choradia (Scheduled Caste).  

6. The said seniority list was published pursuant to the  

order of this Court dated 16-9-1999, passed in Ajit  

Singh (II) v. State of Punjab5 and another order of the  

same date in Ram Prasad v. D.K. Vijay6. Once again  

provisional seniority lists were published on 27-11-

2003 and 12-5-2008. Subsequently, the State of  

Rajasthan published the final seniority lists of super-

time scale and selection scale of the service on 24-6-

2008 as on 1-4-1997 and provisional seniority list  

dated 2-7-2008 as on 1-4-2008, wherein the name of  

Bajrang Lal Sharma was shown below the names of  

both Suraj Bhan Meena and Sriram Choradia.  

7. The Notification dated 25-4-2008, which was the  

subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition was  

challenged on two grounds. It was firstly contended  

that the proviso dated 28-12-2002, which had been  

added to the Various Service Rules was subject to the  

final decision of this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.  

234 of 2002 filed in All India Equality Forum v. Union  

of India, but the same was yet to be decided. Therefore,  

during the pendency of the writ petition before this  

Court, the respondents had acted improperly in  

deleting the abovementioned proviso in the Various  

Service Rules by the Notification dated 25-4-2008,  

 5  (1999) 7 SCC 209  6  (1999) 7 SCC 251

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

6    

which amounted to giving a consequential seniority to  

candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and  

Scheduled Tribes, which could not have been given  

without quantifying the figures of Scheduled Caste and  

Scheduled Tribe candidates to enable a decision to be  

arrived at that reservation was required in promotion  

and also to show that the State had to pass such orders  

for compelling reasons, such as, backwardness,  

inadequacy of representation, as held by this Court in  

M. Nagaraj v. Union of India7. It was contended that  

since the State Government had not complied with the  

directions given by this Court in M. Nagaraj case7, the  

notification in question was liable to be quashed.  

8. It was further urged on behalf of the writ petitioner  

Bajrang Lal Sharma, that in Indra Sawhney v. Union of  

India8, this Court had held that Article 16(4) of the  

Constitution of India did not permit reservations in the  

matter of promotion. Thereafter, the Constitution  

(Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995, was enacted  

and came into force on 17-6-1995. The subsequent  

special leave petitions filed in Union of India v. Virpal  

Singh Chauhan9, Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab10  

[Ajit Singh (I)] and Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab5,  

introduced the “catch-up” rule and held that if a senior  

general candidate was promoted after candidates from  

the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have been  

promoted to a particular cadre, the senior general  

candidate would regain his seniority on promotion in  

relation to the juniors who had been promoted against  

reserved vacancies.”  

 7  (2006) 8 SCC 212  8  1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217  9  (1995) 6 SCC 684  10 (1996) 2 SCC 715

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

7    

3.1 After considering the decision of the Constitution Bench of this  

Court in M. Nagaraj7 the matter was concluded as under:-  

“60. The vital issue which fell for determination was  

whether by virtue of the implementation of the  

constitutional amendments, the power of Parliament  

was enlarged to such an extent so as to ignore all  

constitutional limitations and requirements.  

61. Applying the “width” test and “identity” test, the  

Constitution Bench held that firstly, it is the width of  

the power under the impugned amendments  

introducing amended Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B)  

that had to be tested. Applying the said tests, the  

Constitution Bench, after referring to the various  

decisions of this Court on the subject, came to the  

conclusion that the Court has to be satisfied that the  

State had exercised its power in making reservation for  

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates in  

accordance with the mandate of Article 335 of the  

Constitution, for which the State concerned would  

have to place before the Court the requisite quantifiable  

data in each case and to satisfy the Court that such  

reservation became necessary on account of  

inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Caste and  

Scheduled Tribe candidates in a particular class or  

classes of posts, without affecting the general  

efficiency of service.  

62. The Constitution Bench went on to observe that the  

constitutional equality is inherent in the rule of law.  

However, its reach is limited because its primary  

concern is not with efficiency of the public law, but  

with its enforcement and application. The Constitution  

Bench also observed that the width of the power and  

the power to amend together with its limitations, would  

have to be found in the Constitution itself. It was held  

that the extension of reservation would depend on the  

facts of each case. In case the reservation was  

excessive, it would have to be struck down.

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

8    

63. It was further held that the impugned Constitution  

Amendments, introducing  Articles  16(4-A)  and   

16(4-B), had been inserted and flow from Article  

16(4), but they do not alter the structure of Article  

16(4) of the Constitution. They do not wipe out any of  

the constitutional requirements such as ceiling limit  

and the concept of creamy layer on one hand and  

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes on the other  

hand, as was held in Indra Sawhney case8.  

64. Ultimately, after the entire exercise, the  

Constitution Bench held that the State is not bound to  

make reservation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled  

Tribe candidates in matters of promotion but if it  

wished, it could collect quantifiable data touching  

backwardness of the applicants and inadequacy of  

representation of that class in public employment for  

the purpose of compliance with Article 335 of the  

Constitution.  

65. In effect, what has been decided in M. Nagaraj  

case7 is part recognition of the views expressed in  

Virpal Singh Chauhan case9, but at the same time  

upholding the validity of the Seventy-seventh, Eighty-

first, Eighty-second and Eighty-fifth Amendments on  

the ground that the concepts of “catch-up” rule and  

“consequential seniority” are judicially evolved  

concepts and could not be elevated to the status of a  

constitutional principle so as to place them beyond the  

amending power of Parliament. Accordingly, while  

upholding the validity of the said amendments, the  

Constitution Bench added that, in any event, the  

requirement of Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) would  

have to be maintained and that in order to provide for  

reservation, if at  all, the tests indicated in Articles  

16(4-A) and 16(4-B) would have to be satisfied, which  

could only be achieved after an inquiry as to identity.  

66. The position after the decision in M. Nagaraj case7  

is that reservation of posts in promotion is dependent  

on the inadequacy of representation of members of the  

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Backward

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

9    

Classes and subject to the condition of ascertaining as  

to whether such reservation was at all required.  

67. The view of the High Court is based on the decision  

in M. Nagaraj case7 as no exercise was undertaken in  

terms of Article 16(4-A) to acquire quantifiable data  

regarding the inadequacy of representation of the  

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities in  

public services. The Rajasthan High Court has rightly  

quashed the Notifications dated 28-12-2002 and 25-4-

2008 issued by the State of Rajasthan providing for  

consequential seniority and promotion to the members  

of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe  

communities and the same does not call for any  

interference.  

68. Accordingly, the claim of petitioners Suraj Bhan  

Meena and Sriram Choradia in Special Leave Petition  

(Civil) No. 6385 of 2010 will be subject to the  

conditions laid down in M. Nagaraj case7 and is  

disposed of accordingly. Consequently, Special Leave  

Petitions (C) Nos. 7716, 7717, 7826 and 7838 of 2010,  

filed by the State of Rajasthan, are also dismissed.”  

3.2. Thus, the view taken by the High Court that no exercise was  

undertaken in terms of Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution to acquire  

quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of the representation of the  

Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) communities in public  

services, was accepted.    

4. On 31.03.2011 the State Government constituted a Committee,  

known as Bhatnagar Committee, to look into different aspects relating to

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

10    

reservation in promotion and consequential seniority in terms of the  

Judgment of this Court in M. Nagaraj7.  The Terms of Reference of the  

Committee were:-  

“1. Collection and analysis of quantifiable data of  

inadequacy of representation of SC and ST in matters  

of their promotions and consequential seniority.  

2. To ascertain the extent of representation of  

members of the SC/ST at each level of promotion in  

the various levels of each cadre (There are 110  

government cadres in the State).  

3. Recommend the guiding principles of maintaining  

administrative efficiency vis-à-vis reservation in  

promotion of SC/STs.”  

4.1 The Committee submitted its Report to the State Government on  

19.08.2011.  Some of the relevant portions of the Report were as under:-  

“10.5. Overall analysis of inadequacy in State and  

Subordinate Services as on 1.4.2010  

Total Number of State Service 11457  

Subordinate 64803  

Grand Total 76260  

Total number of Levels/Grade Pay State Service 12  

Subordinate 13  

Total  25  

The overall picture after analyzing the position in the  

Grade Pay Wise of State and Subordinate Services, in  

fact, indicates highly inadequate representation for SC  

and ST in these services as further detailed below.  

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

11    

10.5.1.  Inadequacy of Representation in Subordinate  

Services.  

There are thirteen levels for Subordinate Services as  

described in Sections 10.4.13 to 1.4.25 i.e. Grade Pays  

1650 to 4800 and among them they represent a total of  

64326 employees which is almost 84% of the total of  

State and subordinate services.  In the first group taken  

up for detailed analysis of 6 levels i.e. 2800 to 4800.  It  

would be seen that one level of 2800 has only 128 posts  

and can be left out.  In the remaining five levels it can  

be seen that out of 20 results each for SC and ST in the  

five tables above, for the SC there are results of  

Alarming Shortage, 5 for Substantial Shortage, 5 for  

Moderate Shortage and 1 showing Marginal Shortage.   

In two cases the cadres are saturated and excess  

representation has been indicated only in 3 cases (2  

Moderate and 1 Marginal).  In the case of ST there are  

11 results showing Alarming Shortage, 2 showing  

Substantial Shortage, 3 showing Moderate Shortage  

and 2 showing Marginal Shortage.  In the remaining 2  

cases cadres are saturated.  In the remaining seven  

levels from 1650 to 2400, four out of them i.e., 1650,  

1800, 1850 and 2100 consist of small numbers are of  

no consequence.  In the remaining levels at 1900, 2000  

and 2400, 12 results each for SC and ST do not show  

any case of alarming excess, there are two cases of  

moderate excess and 5 cases of marginal excess.  On  

the contrary, there are 4 cases of alarming shortages, 6  

of substantial shortages, five of moderate shortages and  

one of marginal shortage.   

10.5.2. Inadequacy of Representation in State  

Services.    

Out of 12 levels for state services, the initial four levels  

i.e., 4800, 5400, 6000 and 6600 represent 17408  

employees, i.e. almost 87% of the total of state  

services.  Again out of 15 results each for SC and ST,  

in case of SC 6 showing Alarming Shortage, 3 show  

Substantial Shortage, 6 show Moderate Shortage and  

only 1 shows Marginal Excess.  In the case of ST, there  

are 11 results showing Alarming Shortage, 3 showing  

substantial shortage and 1 showing Moderate Shortage.   

The remaining one result is of Marginal Excess.  In

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

12    

another group of two levels i.e., 7600 and 8700  

representing 2244 employees indicate a mixed picture  

bordering towards Inadequacy.  Exactly out of 8 results  

for SC and ST each for SC there are 4 results showing  

Alarming Shortage and 1 showing Marginal Shortage.   

There is one case of Substantial Excess and one each  

of Moderate and Marginal Excess.  

In the case of ST there are 2 results showing Alarming  

Shortage, 1 result of Marginal Substantial Shortage.  1  

case of Moderate Shortage and 2 results of Marginal  

Shortage.  Finally, there is one case of Marginal  

Excess.  

A third group of two levels i.e., 7000 and 7200  

representing only 72 employees indicates saturation  

levels for both SC and ST.  The last remaining group  

consisting of 4 levels i.e., 6800, 8200, 8900 and 10000  

representing only 240 employees generally indicate  

excess representation.  In fact, nut of a total number of  

16 results for SC and ST each, for SC 3 indicate  

Alarming Shortage and 1 shows a Marginal Shortage.   

In 1 case the result shows saturation of the cadre.  The  

remaining 11 results show 3 Alarming Excess, 4  

Substantial Excess, 2 Moderate Excess and 2 results  

are of Marginal Excess.  In the case of ST there are 6  

cases of Alarming Shortage, 1 case of Substantial  

Shortage, 1 case of Moderate Shortage and 2 cases of  

Marginal Shortage.  In the remaining cases there are 4  

cases of Alarming Excess, 1 case of Marginal Excess  

and 1 case of Cadre Saturation.”  

4.2. From paragraphs 10.11.4 onwards the Committee considered  

figures of excess/shortage of reserved candidates in different grades and  

put the concerned data in tabulated form and the conclusions were  

summarized as under:-  

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

13    

“16.1.  Annual Census of State Government  

Employees carried out by Directorate of Statistics.  

Figures of years 1997, 2001, 2005 and 2009 of the  

census indicate that the representation of SC and ST in  

public services has increased from 18.59% to 27.19%.   

The Pay Range Wise census has also indicated that the  

existing levels just seem to be reaching the required  

percentage in the lowest pay ranges but they are still  

far behind in the higher pay ranges. (Section 9.1.2.2.).  

… … …  

16.7. Backwardness of SC and ST well  

established on the basis of Quantifiable Data.  

The Committee finds that backwardness of SC and ST  

is well established on the basis of quantifiable data.  

(Section 11.5).”  

5. On 11.09.2011 a notification was issued in the Gazette amending  

the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954 as under:-  

“DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL  

(A-Gr.-II)  

NOTIFICATIONS  

Jaipur, September 11, 2011    

G.S.R. 67.- In exercise of the powers conferred by the  

proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the  

Governor of Rajasthan hereby makes the following  

rules further to amend in the Rajasthan Administrative  

Service Rules, 1954, namely:-  

1. Short title and commencement.- (1) These rules  may be called the Rajasthan Administrative  

Service (Amendment) Rules, 2011.  

(2) They shall be deemed to have come into force  

w.e.f. 1-4-1997.  

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

14    

2.  Amendment of rule 33.- In sub-rule (1) of rule 33  

of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954  

after the existing last proviso, the following new  

proviso at the next serial number shall be added,  

namely:-  

“that reservation for Scheduled Castes and  

Scheduled Tribes employees, with  

consequential seniority, shall continue till  

the roster points are exhausted; and  

adequacy of promotion is achieved.  

Once the roster points are complete the  

theory of replacement shall thereafter be  

exercised in promotion whenever vacancies  

earmarked for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled  

Tribes employees occur.  

If on the application of these provisions  

Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes  

employees who had been promoted earlier  

and are found in excess of adequacy level,  

shall not be reverted and shall continue on  

ad-hoc basis, and also any employee who  

had been promoted in pursuance to  

Notification No. F7(1)DOP/A-II/96 dated  

1-4-1997 shall not be reverted.  

Notification No. F.7(1)DOP/A-II/96 dated  

1-4-1997 shall be deemed to have been  

repealed w.e.f. 1-4-1997.  

Explanation:- Adequate representation  

means 16% representation of the Scheduled  

Castes and 12% representation of the  

Scheduled Tribes in accordance with the  

roster point.”  

6. In DB Civil Contempt Petition No. 941 of 2010 which was filed  

earlier in the High Court seeking implementation of the directions issued

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

15    

by the High Court in its judgment and order dated 05.02.2010 in DB Civil  

Writ Petition No.8104 of 2008, the High Court by its judgment and order  

dated 23.02.2012 found the alleged contemnors to be guilty of violation  

of the judgment and order dated 05.02.2010.  The High Court held the  

notification dated 11.09.2011 to be void holding that the same did not  

amount to valid compliance.   

7. The matter again reached this Court in the form of challenge to said  

decision of the High Court and was dealt with by this Court in its decision  

in Salauddin2.    

7.1. The submissions in respect of the notification dated 11.09.2011  

were noted as under:-  

“18. Appearing for the appellants, the learned Attorney  

General pointed out that the Notification issued by the  

State Government on 11-9-2011, had been declared  

void by the High Court by holding that the same did  

not amount to valid compliance and the Notification  

dated 1-4-1997 should be given effect to. The learned  

Attorney General submitted that since by the  

Notification dated 11-9-2011, the earlier Notification  

dated 1-4-1997 had been withdrawn, the same could  

not be given effect to without first declaring the  

Notification dated 11-9-2011 to be ultra vires.  

19. The learned Attorney General submitted that the  

Notification dated 11-9-2011 could not have been  

declared ultra vires in the absence of a substantive writ  

petition challenging the same, and, in any event, it

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

16    

could not be questioned in a contempt proceeding or be  

declared ultra vires therein, particularly, when the  

Bhatnagar Committee had been appointed in terms of  

the order passed by this Court in M. Nagaraj case7 and  

the Notification dated 11-9-2011 was issued in  

pursuance of the report of the said Committee.  

… … …  

38. Dr Dhavan fairly conceded that an order may be  

violated without any wilful intent to disobey the same.  

Referring to Para 459 of Halsbury’s Laws of England,  

dealing with “unintentional disabilities”, Dr Dhavan  

pointed out that sometimes it may so happen that an  

order of court is breached without any intention on the  

part of the offender to do so. Dr Dhavan submitted that  

this could be such a case and, accordingly, the  

contemnors could be directed to purge themselves of  

the contempt by withdrawing all the notifications,  

including the Notification dated 11-9-2011, and  

implementing the order dated 5-2-20104, and also to  

punish the contemnors without sentence.”  

7.2.  The issue whether the State and its authorities were guilty of willful  

and deliberate violation of binding directions was considered by this Court  

as under:-  

“41. Inasmuch as no further action was taken by the  

State and its authorities after the said notifications were  

quashed, the contempt petition was filed mainly on the  

ground that the State and its authorities had by their  

inaction in complying with the requirements set out in  

M. Nagaraj case7, committed contempt of court and  

the same was accepted and the appellants herein were  

found guilty of having committed contempt of court by  

such inaction.  

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

17    

42. The next thing that we are required to consider is  

whether such inaction was on account of any  

circumstances which prevented the State Government  

and its authorities from taking action in terms of the  

observations made by the Division Bench of the High  

Court in its judgment dated 5-2-20104, or whether such  

inaction was on account of the deliberate intention of  

the State and its authorities not to give effect to the  

same.  

43. The learned Attorney General, who had appeared  

for the State of Rajasthan and its authorities, had  

submitted that the order dated 5-2-20104, was in two  

parts. While one part dealt with the quashing of the two  

notifications, the other was with regard to the  

observations made in the said order with regard to the  

directions given in M. Nagaraj case7 for collection of  

the quantifiable data before giving effect to the  

provisions of Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution. The  

learned Attorney General has also emphasised that in  

order to give effect to the second part of the judgment  

and order of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High  

Court and the directions given in para 68 of the  

judgment in Suraj Bhan Meena case1, the Government  

of Rajasthan had appointed the Bhatnagar Committee  

to obtain the quantifiable data to comply with the  

directions given in the two aforesaid judgments. The  

learned Attorney General has also pointed out that  

directions have been given to all the different  

departments on 14-2-2011, to ensure compliance with  

the directions contained in Suraj Bhan Meena case1.  

44. Although, it has been urged on behalf of the  

respondents that there was a restraint order on the State  

and its authorities from giving effect to the  

observations made in the order passed by the Division  

Bench of the High Court on 5-2-20104, or even in the  

order passed in Suraj Bhan Meena case1, the State and  

its authorities remained inactive on the plea that it had  

appointed the Bhatnagar Committee to collect the data  

necessary in terms of the judgment and order passed in

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

18    

M. Nagaraj case7, which had been reiterated by this  

Court in Suraj Bhan Meena case1.  

45. The explanation given on behalf of the State and its  

authorities cannot be discounted, since in order to act  

in terms of the sentiments expressed by the High Court  

and this Court, it was necessary to collect the  

quantifiable data in respect of the Scheduled Caste and  

Scheduled Tribe candidates. For collection of such  

data, the State appointed the Bhatnagar Committee  

which was entrusted with the work of obtaining such  

quantifiable data so that the provisions of the amended  

clause (4-A) included in Article 16 of the Constitution  

could be given effect to in terms of the directions given  

in M. Nagaraj case7, subsequently reiterated in Suraj  

Bhan Meena case1.  

46. The various submissions advanced by Mr Salve, Dr  

Dhavan and Mr Sanjeev Prakash Sharma in support of  

the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court,  

holding the appellants guilty of contempt of court and,  

in particular, the alleged inaction to implement the  

judgment and orders in M. Nagaraj case7 and Suraj  

Bhan Meena case1 are not very convincing, since in  

order to comply with the findings in M. Nagaraj case7  

and Suraj Bhan Meena case1, necessary data was  

required to be collected, in the absence of which it was  

not possible for the State and its authorities to act in  

terms of the observations made in M. Nagaraj case7  

and in Suraj Bhan Meena case1.  

47. Accordingly, we are of the view that despite the  

fact that there has been delay on the part of the State  

and its authorities in giving effect to the observations  

made in the two aforesaid cases, there was no wilful or  

deliberate intention on their part to defy the orders of  

this Court. The very fact that the Bhatnagar Committee  

was appointed indicates that the State and its  

authorities had every intention to implement the  

aforesaid observations, though the progress of such  

implementation has been tardy. Accordingly, we are

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

19    

unable to sustain the impugned judgment11 and order  

of the Division Bench of the High Court holding the  

appellants guilty of contempt of court for purported  

violation of the order passed by the Division Bench of  

the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court on 5-2-

20104, while disposing of Civil Writ Petition No. 8410  

of 2008. Consequently, the judgment and order under  

appeal has to be set aside.  

48. We accordingly allow the appeals and set aside the  

aforesaid judgment, but with the further direction that  

the State and its authorities act in terms of the Report  

of the Bhatnagar Committee, in accordance with the  

decision rendered in M. Nagaraj case7 and in Suraj  

Bhan Meena case1, within two months from the date of  

communication of this judgment and order. There will  

be no order as to costs.”  

7.3. It was thus found by this Court in paragraphs 46 and 47 that there  

was no willful and deliberate violation; that the State Government had  

appointed the Bhatnagar Committee to collect the data necessary in terms  

of the Judgment and Order passed by this Court in M. Nagaraj7 case  

which principles were reiterated in the decision in Suraj Bhan1.  The  

directions issued by this Court in paragraph 48 were clear that the State  

Government and its authorities were to act in terms of the Report of the  

Bhatnagar Committee in accordance with the decision rendered in M.  

 11 Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  Salauddin Ahmed, Civil Contempt Petitions Nos. 359 and 941 of  

2010 in WP(C)No.8104 of 2008, order dated 23-2-2012 (Raj)

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

20    

Nagaraj7 case and in the decision in Suraj Bhan1 within two months from  

the date of decision of this Court.  

8. The aforesaid decision was rendered by this Court on 29.08.2012  

and the instant Contempt Petitions were filed in November, 2012 setting  

out the grievance as under:-  

“13.  That State of Rajasthan despite the judgment   

dated 29.8.2012 passed by this Hon’ble Court, wherein  

notification dated 11.9.2011 was not accepted as  

compliance to judgment dated 5.2.2010 & 7.12.2010,  

had issued a order dated 12.9.2012: whereby direction  

was issued to all the departments to publish the  

seniority lists and make promotions on the basis of the  

notification dated 11.9.2011.  

…   … …  

14.  That the action of the State of Rajasthan of making  

promotions on the basis of the Notification dated  

11.9.2011 is in blatant contempt to the directions given  

by this Hon’ble Court in judgment dated 29.8.2012  

despite of the understanding / conceding of the State of  

Rajasthan that after quashing of the Notifications dated  

25.4.2008 and 28.12.2002, the Notification dated  

1.4.1997 revives.  In order to make compliance of the  

judgment dated 5.2.2010, as also required by this  

Hon’ble Court vide judgment dated 29.8.2012, the  

General Category employees  are entitled for their  

vested and accrued rights of regained seniority.  

…   … …  

15.  That this Hon’ble Court in directions dated  

29.8.2012 had clearly directed the State of Rajasthan to  

make the compliance of the judgment in terms of the  

report of the Bhatnagar Committee, in accordance with

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

21    

M. Nagraj7 and Suraj Bhan Meena1.  It is relevant to  

mention that Bhatnagar Committee has no where  

recommended giving of consequential Seniority to  

SC/ST w.e.f. 1.4.1997.  It is also to be noted that  

Bhatnagar Committee conducted study of only 17  

services out of 117 services and out of those 17  

services in 16 services there is excessive representation  

of the SC/ST employees on promotional posts.  In M.  

Nagraj7 this Hon’ble Court observed that study is to be  

conducted in each case and where there is adequate or  

excessive representation that powers under Article  

16(4A) cannot be excercised. … …”  

9. Notice was issued by this Court on 09.01.2013 whereafter pleadings  

have been exchanged and certain additional documents have also been  

placed on record.     

9.1. In the meantime, the notification dated 11.09.2011 and the  

Bhatnagar Committee Report were challenged in the High Court in DB  

Civil Writ Petition No. 13476 of 2012 and in other connected matters and  

the challenge is still pending.  By order dated 20.09.2016 it was observed:-  

“Looking at the facts of the case we are of the view that  

the writ petitions, i.e., Civil Writ Nos. 14176, 20799,  

13476, 16694 of 2012, pending in the High Court of  

Rajasthan should be decided finally at an early date,  

preferably within three months from the date of  

intimation of this order to the High Court.  

Parties to the litigation shall appear before the High  

Court on 30th September, 2016, so that the date for final  

hearing can be fixed by the High Court on that day.”  

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

22    

9.2. To similar effect was the Order dated 05.12.2017 by which it was  

observed:-  

“We are informed that pursuant to our order dated  

20.09.2016, Writ Petitions are listed before the  

Rajasthan High Court after two weeks.  

We request the High Court of Rajasthan to dispose of  

the Civil Writ Nos.14176, 20799, 13476, 16694 of  

2012 without further delay.”  

9.3. In view of the fact that by Order dated 15.11.201712 a Bench of  

three Judges of this Court had referred the matter to a larger Bench to  

consider whether the law declared by this Court in M. Nagaraj7 needed to  

be revisited, the Writ Petitions were deferred by the High Court.  

9.4. The present Contempt Petitions were, therefore, adjourned vide  

Order dated 03.04.2018 with following observations:-  

“Post the contempt petitions after the report is received  

from the High Court of Rajasthan on the disposal of  

Writ Petition(C)No.20119 of 2012 and other connected  

matters.    

The parties are free to bring to the notice of this Court  

once the matters are disposed of by the High Court.”  

 12 (2018) 17 SCC 261

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

23    

10. A Constitution Bench of this Court, in Jarnail Singh and others   

vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta and others13 dealt with the matter while  

answering the reference as aforesaid and observed:-   

“23. This brings us to whether the judgment in  

Nagaraj7 needs to be revisited on the other grounds that  

have been argued before us. Insofar as the State having  

to show quantifiable data as far as backwardness of the  

class is concerned, we are afraid that we must reject  

Shri Shanti Bhushan’s argument. The reference to  

“class” is to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled  

Tribes, and their inadequacy of representation in public  

employment. It is clear, therefore, that Nagaraj7 has, in  

unmistakable terms, stated that the State has to collect  

quantifiable data showing backwardness of the  

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. We are  

afraid that this portion of the judgment is directly  

contrary to the nine-Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney  

(1)8 Jeevan Reddy, J., speaking for himself and three  

other learned Judges, had clearly held:    

“[t]he test or requirement of social and  

educational backwardness cannot be applied  

to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled  

Tribes, who indubitably fall within the  

expression “backward class of citizens”.”  

(See SCC p. 727, paras 796 to 797.)  

Equally, Dr Justice Thommen, in his  

conclusion at para 323(4), had held as  

follows: (SCC pp. 461-62)  

“323. Summary  

*    * *  

(4) Only such classes of citizens who are  

socially and educationally backward are  

qualified to be identified as Backward  

Classes. To be accepted as Backward Classes  

for the purpose of reservation under Article  

 13 (2018) 10 SCC 396

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

24    

15 or Article 16, their backwardness must  

have been either recognised by means of a  

notification by the President under Article  

341 or Article 342 declaring them to be  

Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, or, on  

an objective consideration, identified by the  

State to be socially and educationally so  

backward by reason of identified prior  

discrimination and its continuing ill effects  

as to be comparable to the Scheduled Castes  

or the Scheduled Tribes. In the case of the  

Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes,  

these conditions are, in view of the  

notifications, presumed to be satisfied.””  

24. In fact, Chinnaiah14 has referred to the Scheduled  

Castes as being the most backward among the  

Backward Classes (see para 43). This is for the reason  

that the Presidential List contains only those castes or  

groups or parts thereof, which have been regarded as  

untouchables. Similarly, the Presidential List of  

Scheduled Tribes only refers to those tribes in remote  

backward areas who are socially extremely backward.  

Thus, it is clear that when Nagaraj7 requires the States  

to collect quantifiable data on backwardness, insofar as  

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are concerned,  

this would clearly be contrary to Indra Sawhney (1)8  

and would have to be declared to be bad on this ground.  

25. However, when it comes to the creamy layer  

principle, it is important to note that this principle  

sounds in Articles 14 and 16(1), as unequals within the  

same class are being treated equally with other  

members of that class. The genesis of this principle is  

to be found in State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas15. This  

case was concerned with a test-relaxation rule in  

promotions from lower division clerks to upper  

division clerks. By a 5:2 majority judgment, the said  

rule was upheld as a rule that could be justified on the  

basis that it became necessary as a means of generally  

 14 E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P., (2005) 1 SCC 394 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 329  15 (1976) 2 SCC 310 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 227

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

25    

giving a leg-up to Backward Classes. In para 124,  

Krishna Iyer, J. opined: (SCC p. 363)  

“124. A word of sociological caution. In the  

light of experience, here and elsewhere, the  

danger of “reservation”, it seems to me, is  

threefold. Its benefits, by and large, are  

snatched away by the top creamy layer of  

the “backward” caste or class, thus keeping  

the weakest among the weak always weak  

and leaving the fortunate layers to consume  

the whole cake. Secondly, this claim is  

overplayed extravagantly in democracy by  

large and vocal groups whose burden of  

backwardness has been substantially  

lightened by the march of time and  

measures of better education and more  

opportunities of employment, but wish to  

wear the “weaker section” label as a means  

to score over their near-equals formally  

categorised as the upper brackets. Lastly, a  

lasting solution to the problem comes only  

from improvement of social environment,  

added educational facilities and cross-

fertilisation of castes by inter-caste and  

inter-class marriages sponsored as a  

massive State programme, and this solution  

is calculatedly hidden from view by the  

higher “backward” groups with a vested  

interest in the plums of backwardism. But  

social science research, not judicial  

impressionism, will alone tell the whole  

truth and a constant process of objective re-

evaluation of progress registered by the  

“underdog” categories is essential lest a  

once deserving “reservation” should be  

degraded into “reverse discrimination”.  

Innovations in administrative strategy to  

help the really untouched, most backward  

classes also emerge from such socio-legal  

studies and audit exercises, if  

dispassionately made. In fact, research  

conducted by the A.N. Sinha Institute of

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

26    

Social Studies, Patna, has revealed a dual  

society among harijans, a tiny elite gobbling  

up the benefits and the darker layers  

sleeping distances away from the special  

concessions. For them, Articles 46 and 335  

remain a “noble romance” [As Huxley  

called it in “Administrative Nihilism”  

(Methods and Results, Vol. 4 of Collected  

Essays).], the bonanza going to the “higher”  

Harijans. I mention this in the present case  

because lower division clerks are likely to  

be drawn from the lowest levels of Harijan  

humanity and promotion prospects being  

accelerated by withdrawing, for a time,  

“test” qualifications for this category may  

perhaps delve deeper. An equalitarian  

breakthrough in a hierarchical structure has  

to use many weapons and Rule 13-AA  

perhaps is one.”  (emphasis in original)  

26. The whole object of reservation is to see that  

Backward Classes of citizens move forward so that  

they may march hand in hand with other citizens of  

India on an equal basis. This will not be possible if only  

the creamy layer within that class bag all the coveted  

jobs in the public sector and perpetuate themselves,  

leaving the rest of the class as backward as they always  

were. This being the case, it is clear that when a court  

applies the creamy layer principle to Scheduled Castes  

and Scheduled Tribes, it does not in any manner tinker  

with the Presidential List under Articles 341 or 342 of  

the Constitution of India. The caste or group or sub-

group named in the said List continues exactly as  

before. It is only those persons within that group or  

sub-group, who have come out of untouchability or  

backwardness by virtue of belonging to the creamy  

layer, who are excluded from the benefit of reservation.  

Even these persons who are contained within the group  

or sub-group in the Presidential Lists continue to be  

within those Lists. It is only when it comes to the  

application of the reservation principle under Articles

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

27    

14 and 16 that the creamy layer within that sub-group  

is not given the benefit of such reservation.    

27. We do not think it necessary to go into whether  

Parliament may or may not exclude the creamy layer  

from the Presidential Lists contained under Articles  

341 and 342. Even on the assumption that Articles 341  

and 342 empower Parliament to exclude the creamy  

layer from the groups or sub-groups contained within  

these Lists, it is clear that constitutional courts,  

applying Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution to  

exclude the creamy layer cannot be said to be thwarted  

in this exercise by the fact that persons stated to be  

within a particular group or sub-group in the  

Presidential List may be kept out by Parliament on  

application of the creamy layer principle. One of the  

most important principles that has been frequently  

applied in constitutional law is the doctrine of  

harmonious interpretation. When Articles 14 and 16  

are harmoniously interpreted along with other Articles  

341 and 342, it is clear that Parliament will have  

complete freedom to include or exclude persons from  

the Presidential Lists based on relevant factors.  

Similarly, constitutional courts, when applying the  

principle of reservation, will be well within their  

jurisdiction to exclude the creamy layer from such  

groups or sub-groups when applying the principles of  

equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of  

India. We do not agree with Balakrishnan, C.J.’s  

statement in Ashoka Kumar Thakur16 that the creamy  

layer principle is merely a principle of identification  

and not a principle of equality.  

28. Therefore, when Nagaraj7 applied the creamy layer  

test to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in  

exercise of application of the basic structure test to  

uphold the constitutional amendments leading to  

Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B), it did not in any manner  

interfere with Parliament’s power under Article 341 or  

Article 342. We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion  

that this part of the judgment does not need to be  

 16 Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. union of India, (2008) 6 SCC 1 : 3 SCEC 35

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

28    

revisited, and consequently, there is no need to refer  

Nagaraj7 to a seven-Judge Bench. We may also add at  

this juncture that Nagaraj7 is a unanimous judgment of  

five learned Judges of this Court which has held sway  

since the year 2006. This judgment has been repeatedly  

followed and applied by a number of judgments of this  

Court, namely:  

28.1. Anil Chandra v. Radha Krishna Gaur17 (two-

Judge Bench) (see paras 17 and 18).    

28.2. Suraj Bhan Meena v. State of Rajasthan1 (two-

Judge Bench) (see paras 10, 50, and 67).    

28.3. U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar18 (two-

Judge Bench) [see paras 61, 81(ix), and 86].    

28.4. S. Panneer Selvam v. State of T.N.19 (two-Judge  

Bench) (see paras 18, 19, and 36).    

28.5. Central Bank of India v. SC/ST Employees  

Welfare Assn.20 (two-Judge Bench) (see paras 9 and  

26).    

28.6. Suresh Chand Gautam v. State of U.P.21 (two-

Judge Bench) (see paras 2 and 45).    

28.7. B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India22 (two-Judge  

Bench) (see paras 17 to 22).”  

10.1 The conclusion arrived at in para 36 of the decision was:-    

36. Thus, we conclude that the judgment in Nagaraj7  

does not need to be referred to a seven-Judge Bench.  

However, the conclusion in Nagaraj7 that the State has  

to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of  

the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, being  

 17  (2009) 9 SCC 454  18 (2012) 7 SCC 1   19 (2015) 10 SCC 292   20 (2015) 12 SCC 308   21 (2016) 11 SCC 113   22 (2017) 4 SCC 620  

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

29    

contrary to the nine-Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney  

(1) 8  is held to be invalid to this extent.”  

11. Thereafter, by way of Interlocutory Application No.17130 of 2019  

a copy of order dated 05.10.2018 issued by the Government of Rajasthan  

was placed on record.  The relevant portion of said order was as under:-  

“As per the opinion of Law Department in reference to  

the judgment dated 09.02.2017 delivered by Hon’ble  

Supreme Court in SLP No.2368/2011 B.K. Pavitra   

V/s.  Govt. of India, the notification dated 11.09.2011  

is hereby clarified as under:-  

As per the provisions of notification dated  

11.09.2011 of Personnel Department, the  

benefits of consequential seniority in  

reservation in promotion for public servants  

of SC/ST categories, can only be extended till  

the achievement of the condition of adequacy  

in promotion or till roster point is completed.   

Once the fulfillment of roster point,  

replacement theory will be applicable.  

As per the principle laid down by Hon’ble  

Supreme Court in above judgment dated  

09.02.2017 and above provision provided in  

notification dated 11.09.2011, in the matter  

of promotion of public servants of Scheduled  

Castes/Scheduled Tribes categories, where  

adequacy of representation has been  

achieved, the consequential seniority cannot  

be given and the public servants of General  

& OBC categories will regain their  

consequential seniority and seniority lists  

will be issued accordingly.  

Hence all Recruiting Officers/HODs hereby  

instructed to implement the above order word  

by word.”  

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

30    

12. In affidavit dated 17.02.2019 filed on behalf of the State  

Government following stand was taken in para 3 of the affidavit:-  

“3. A clarification was sought to be issued by the State  

Government vide Circular dated 05.10.2018.   

However, the Circular dated 05.10.2018 was made  

inoperative/stayed by the State Government  

immediately after the issuance of the Circular dated  

05.10.2018 in the month of October, 2018 itself.  Thus  

the circular of 05.10.2018 has never been acted upon.   

The present government is seeking re-examine the  

efficacy of the Circular dated 05.10.2018.  It is  

reiterated that the Circular of 05.10.2018 is  

inoperative.”  

13.  We heard Mr. M. L. Lahoti, learned Advocate for the contempt  

petitioner and Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate for the alleged  

contemnors.    

It was submitted by Mr. Lahoti, learned Advocate that the directions  

issued by this Court in Suraj Bhan Meena1 were not complied with; that the  

Notification dated 11.09.2011 was in contempt of the directions issued by  

this Court; that the stand taken in the affidavit dated 17.02.2019 was  

completely incorrect and more than 50 inter-departmental orders had been  

passed implementing Circular dated 05.10.2018; that in the light of Circular  

dated 05.10.2018 adequacy level in RAC Cadre having been achieved the

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

31    

contempt petitioner ought to be extended the benefit of regaining of seniority  

along with all consequential benefits of reservation in promotion from  

RAS23 to IAS24.    

 In response, Dr. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate submitted that  

Notification dated 11.09.2011 was found to be in contempt of binding  

directions and was specifically held by the High Court to be inoperative;  

however, the view taken by the High Court was set aside by this Court; and  

that the Notification dated 11.09.2011 cannot therefore be held to be in  

contempt of the directions issued by this Court; that challenge to such  

Notification and to the recommendations of the Bhatnagar Committee was  

still pending in the High Court; and that one of the pending writ petitions  

was that of the contempt petitioner himself.    

14. The law declared by this Court in M. Nagraj7, which was followed  

in Suraj Bhan Meena1 is clear that in the absence of any quantifiable data  

relating to the issue of backwardness and inadequacy of representation of  

the concerned classes in public employment, no benefit of consequential  

seniority could be extended.  Therefore, in Suraj Bhan Meena1, the  

 23 Rajasthan Administrative Service  24 Indian Administrative Service

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

32    

Notifications dated 28.12.2002 and 25.08.2008 providing for consequential  

seniority in promotion to the Members of the SC/ST communities were set  

aside.    

15. Since the decision in Suraj Bhan Meena1 was on the premise that  

no such exercise was undertaken to acquire quantifiable data, the State  

Government constituted the Bhatnagar Committee.  The Committee went  

into the issues and made certain recommendations based on which a  

Notification was issued by the State Government on 11.09.2011.  Whether  

that amounted to contempt or not was a subject matter of discussion before  

the High Court which, by its judgment and order dated 23.02.2012 found  

said Notification to be not in compliance of binding directions and to be  

invalid.  The challenge in Salauddin2 was inter alia to the finding arrived at  

by the High Court in its contempt jurisdiction and the submission advanced  

by the learned Attorney General as recorded in paras 18 and 19 of the  

decision in Salauddin2 was that in the absence of any substantive writ  

petition challenging the same, said Notification could not have been  

questioned in contempt jurisdiction.  The decision in Salauddin2 set aside  

the view taken by the High Court.  Thus, the issuance of Notification dated  

11.09.2011 was not found to be in contempt nor was it invalidated for being  

non-compliant of any binding directions.   

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

33    

16. As a matter of fact, the directions issued by this Court in para 48  

were clear that the State and its authorities were to act in terms of the report  

of the Bhatnagar Committee in accordance with the decisions in M. Nagraj7  

and Suraj Bhan Meena1.  The basic foundation of the present contempt  

petitions projecting the issuance of Notification dated 11.09.2011 to be in  

contempt of the directions issued by this Court, thus, does not survive.  In  

any case, challenge to said Notification and the report of the Bhatnagar  

Committee is still pending consideration before the High Court where the  

correctness and validity thereof will be gone into in accordance with law.  

17.  With the decision of this Court in Jarnail Singh13 the matter also  

stands on a slightly modified footing.  As concluded by this Court in Jarnail  

Singh13 the conclusion in M. Nagraj7 that the State has to collect  

quantifiable data showing backwardness of SC/ST, being contrary to the 9  

Judges Bench decision in Indra Sawhney8, was held to be invalid.  The  

challenge to the recommendations given by the Bhatnagar Committee and  

the quantifiable data adverted to by the Committee will therefore have to be  

seen by the High Court in the light of the directions issued by this Court in  

Jarnail Singh13.  

18.  It is, thus, clear that all these issues need to be gone into in a  

substantive challenge and will be beyond the scope of contempt jurisdiction.  

Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos.453-454 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  

Bajrang Lal Sharma  vs.  C.K. Mathew and ors.  

34    

The issuance of Notification dated 11.09.2011 was in exercise of powers  

vested in the concerned authorities and if the approach and the exercise is  

otherwise incorrect or wrong, the same can be tested and considered while  

dealing with the substantive challenge but such issuance cannot be said to  

be contumacious to invite any action in contempt jurisdiction.  

19.  In the circumstances, we see no reason to entertain these contempt  

petitions any longer.  These contempt petitions are directed to be closed.   

We, however, request the High Court to consider taking up all the matters  

where challenge has been made to the issuance of Notification dated  

11.09.2011 and to the recommendations of the Bhatnagar Committee and  

such allied issues as early as possible and dispose of the same preferably  

within a period of six months from the date of this order.  

………………………………J.  

[Uday Umesh Lalit]  

………………………………J.  

[Indira Banerjee]  

………………………………J.  

[M.R. Shah]  

New Delhi;  

January 23, 2020.